Silver claimed that the fact that people had a PAST history of travelling to Israel, does not put them at a FUTURE risk of doing so.

Silver apparantly does not understand the concept of actuarial risk. Insurance companies look at their payouts and the causes of death of their clients to set their risk factors. They set their rates acording to thei risk. If their clients weren't dynging in statistically significant numbers in Israel this would not be an issue. Seems like an easy problem to fix though. Since traveling to Israel is a significant risk then the insurance company can just put a rider on the policy and not pay for deaths and injury incurred while traveling in Israel. Anyone wanting to travel to Israel could just buy insurance for their trip. That's fair for everyone. Why should my insurance rates go up to subsidize some else's penchant for risk?